. . . because much of the content relates both to Washington, D.C., and "outside the beltway" -- the heartland, specifically Iowa -- and because after going from Iowa to Washington via Texas and California I subsequently returned, From DC 2 Iowa.

Wednesday, September 02, 2015

Business Background: Enough for University President?

September 2, 2015, 9:35 a.m.; with updates through October 31, 2015

Note:After October 31, additional entries will appear on "UI President Harreld - Nov. 2015." The blog post you are now looking at will remain publicly available as a resource regarding events from September 2 through October 31, 2015.

Links to Resources
(Documents; plus News and Opinion pieces by dates)

[Note: Most linked items relate to the Board of Regents process and selection during the recent UI presidential search. Those prefaced with "General" involve either (a) higher education in general (support, attacks, proposals), or (b) UI-specific possible issues for discussion.]

No one disputes the Regents' legal authority to execute their most mean-spirited whims against the University of Iowa -- though many dispute the wisdom of their doing so. Few if any faculty would suggest that a candidate for a university's presidency with business experience should be disqualified. But if the Regents would actually apply their professed admiration for today's progressive business culture they would know that:
(1) no Fortune 500 corporation would use this process, or end up selecting this candidate (with neither CEO nor higher education administrative experience) as either a corporate CEO or a university president,
(2) nor, for the sake of the candidate as well as the institution, would any board or CEO, with a responsibility to shareholders, risk forcing as important a decision as this on an entire employee base, knowing that it is strongly opposed by 98.2% of them, without at least previously having taken the time to educate stakeholders and create buy-in to the decision (if possible) before it was made, announced, and implemented,
(3) and if, as appears may be the case, the Regents' leadership knew from the start they would ignore the predictable faculty opposition and consider only candidates with business experience, they could have (a) picked four business candidates and let the faculty and public provide input on which was preferred; or (b) if they had already decided on Harreld (he was the only one of the four given a private conversation with the Governor before his public forum), they could have simply skipped the process entirely, picked him, and saved an enormous amount of embarrassment, anger, money, time and effort on the part of the three distinguished academic leaders who were good faith candidates, the search committee's members, the UI's faculty, staff, and students, media and public. Either path would have been preferable to what they did.

-- Nicholas Johnson, September 4, 2015

We're approaching the most important stage in the search for UI president. Student, faculty, and staff voices count.

Bruce Harreld may become a terrific president, . . . or he may prove to be a slash-and-burn corporate raider bent on pulling down the ivory towers of academia to make room for a fertilizer plant. . . . I’m willing to give Harreld a shot. But nobody should be comfortable with the way it was done, . . .. You don’t have to connect many dots to figure out . . . [he] likely was Board of Regents President Bruce Rastetter’s top pick from the beginning. . . . Winner, winner, Boston Chicken dinner. So it seems the search process, the naming of four finalists, public forums, surveys of students and faculty, interviews, etc., all were, basically, shiny public packaging for hiring the business guy. You let people speak, but there’s no reason to listen. . . . [T]heir voices are simply background noise.

Some say the best hires for university presidencies are those with experience as university or college presidents, vice presidents, or provosts. Others believe these are essential requirements.

Since yesterday [Sept. 1, 2015] the University of Iowa's stakeholder groups (e.g., Regents, administrators, faculty, staff, students) have been addressing these standards.

Bruce Harreld, the fourth of four finalists following a national search, held his "public forum" that afternoon. [Photo credit: Nicholas Johnson]

This is a matter of some urgency for the University of Iowa, as the Regents will be picking the next UI president tomorrow, September 3.

But it is perhaps also a useful case study (as they say at the Harvard Business School) for colleges and universities elsewhere. This is neither the time nor space to be itemizing all the challenges confronting higher education today. But there remains a current of anti-intellectualism in America always quick to suggest that the universal solution for challenged governmental or non-profit organizations is to simply become more "business-like."

Here, then, are one person's reflections about the potential role of business executives as university presidents.

_______________

Admittedly, universities cannot be administered like Fortune 500 corporations or branches of the military. Among American institutions, they are sui generis, with missions, values and history unlike any other (think faculty "tenure," and a century-old "shared governance" tradition). However, that does not mean a mix of experience that included familiarity with business might not be useful for a university president.

But neither does it mean that any and every person with business experience would make a great university president -– or even a passable business leader. While they should not be peremptorily dismissed from consideration, they need to be subjected to a more creative and in depth evaluation than the more traditional candidates.

It is said that many persons go through as many as a half-dozen careers in their lifetime. Assume hypothetically that one of our UI law school graduates accepts U.S. Court of Appeals and Supreme Court clerkships; a tenure-track position at a major university’s law school; private sector corporate law practice; a couple appointments from the U.S. president to head agencies; the chair of a non-profit organization; and then combines a national column, lecture business, radio commentary, and role as TV host, before returning to law school teaching. Nothing in that range of experience would qualify them to function as CEO of a major corporation, but the combination of government administrative experience, plus the legal representation of major corporations, would at least be of some relevance.

Similarly, a comparable range of experience for a business school graduate, including at least some interaction with university administrators, would be of some relevance when they were considered for a university presidency.

Assuming someone with business background is to be considered for a university presidency, what should his or her thorough vetting require? What would a decision tree look like? What are the minimums that should be required in terms of familiarity with education in general and higher education in particular?

Prestige. A celebrity-class name is neither a prerequisite nor a sufficient reason for a hire. But a Jeff Bezos (Amazon), Warren Buffett (Berkshire Hathaway), or Jack Welsh (General Electric) -- like General Dwight Eisenhower’s not totally satisfactory term as president of Columbia University, 1948-52 -- could bring a kind of “wow!” factor to a university.

However, it should be noted, Jeff Bezos graduated summa cum laude from Princeton, with degrees in electrical engineering and computer science. Warren Buffett attended the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, holds a B.Sc. in business from the University of Nebraska, and a M.Sc. in economics from Columbia. Jack Welsh earned a B.Sc. from the University of Massachusetts, and a M.Sc. and Ph.D. in chemical engineering from the University of Illinois.

Reminiscent of Senator Lloyd Bentsen’s rejoinder to Senator Dan Quayle in the 1988 vice-presidential debate (“Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy”), “Bruce Harreld, you’re no Jeff Bezos.” No fault in that; he never suggested that he was. Few of us are a Jeff Bezos. But it does mean that whatever else Harreld may offer the University of Iowa, and State of Iowa, he does not bring the additional prestige of a business celebrity.

Educational Minimums. It may not be necessary for a university president to have been a university president, or provost, elsewhere, but it is not unreasonable to require at least some education-related administrative experience.

Harreld has literally no administrative experience at any level of our educational system, from K-12 schools through our largest public, research universities. He has never held even a tenure track position at a college or university, and would not meet the UI College of Business requirements for one here (status normally provided university presidents who qualify). He has produced little writing that might be considered serious "scholarship." His bio reflects an engineering degree from Purdue, and an M.B.A. degree from Harvard, but no suggestion of academic distinction. Not incidentally, as a "business candidate," he also has no CEO experience with major corporations, and such business experience as he possesses has created a mixed record.

His teaching experience has been limited to that of an adjunct or lecturer at Northwestern and Harvard Business School, but there is no indication of his assuming any administrative role, however menial, at those institutions.

Relevant values. Lacking much in the way of educational credentials, one might look to a business candidate’s history of action and speech with regard to the values of the academy. What can Bruce Harreld point to from his past to indicate that he respects and values the work of academic researchers, scholars, and professors, the mission and contribution of liberal arts education -- indeed, any of the missions, goals, and accomplishments of higher education beyond those of a business college -- not only to a state’s economy but to its culture and quality of life?

There is, of course, an overlap between some of the functions and necessary skills within for-profit and non-profit organizations, such as accounting and human resources practices. But there are also major differences, such as values and goals. What do we know about Harreld’s understanding, respect, and advocacy for non-profit institutions -- as distinguished from the contributions from America’s largest for-profit corporations?

Skills Allocation. It is true that one can no more expect a president of a university than the president of the United States to possess all the knowledge, skills, and expertise -- or even energy -- required to carry out their job. They must rely on others, such as personal staff, vice presidents, or in an academic setting, deans and department heads as well as individual faculty and staff members.

However, in my opinion, a university president needs to be an educational leader, setting the tone for an educational institution. It is far easier, and cheaper, to find those skilled in data management, accounting practices, wealth management of endowments, media relations, building maintenance, marketing and branding, and all the other requisite professions and skills. It is both more difficult, and inappropriate, to try to outsource, hire, or contract for, educational leadership, vision, mission creation and execution. That should be a university president’s job one, a job that requires a depth of knowledge regarding higher education.

It makes no more sense to rely on a business person to go through on-the-job training in order to develop competence as a university president than it would be to pluck a distinguished, tenured scholar-professor with no business or administrative experience out of a university and make her CEO of a mid-sized corporation.

Business Record. If the primary qualities of a business person chosen to be a university president is their experience in business, it seems only fair to put that record in business on the table for thorough review.

In recent years he represents that his primary function has been as a consultant to CEOs, as distinguished from running an organization as a CEO. There is nothing by which to judge his competence as a consultant. But even assuming he would be universally judged to be among the nation's top business consultants, that alone does not equate with CEO experience.

Perhaps the problem is that while the Regents share Harreld's proposed UI mission statement -- to move the UI "from great to greater" -- they somehow failed to read Harreld's article, "Six Ways to Sink a Growth Initiative": "2. Not Putting the Best, Most Experienced Talent in Charge. Big companies typically assign two types of people to lead growth initiatives. . . . The second type are staff executives who have solid experience in a particular functional area and in managing projects but have never run an entire business. . . . But these positions are not 'development opportunities' or jobs for staff people." Donald L. Laurie and J. Bruce Harreld, "Leadership: Six Ways to Sink a Growth Initiative,"Harvard Business Review, July-August, 2013

So far as the record reveals, Bruce Harreld may be a wonderful person -- kind to children and dogs and a good neighbor. Notwithstanding an hour and a half listening to him, we've never met, so that experience plus the written record and newspaper reports is all that's known.

But based on that business record, set forth immediately below, I would be hesitant to hire him even as a corporate CEO, let alone the president of a major American research university. Here is how the Gazette's journalist, Vanessa Miller, reported in the September 2 edition what she had found out regarding Harreld's business experience:

He was president and member of the board for Boston Market Company in Golden, Colo., from 1993 to 1995, working with five partners to grow the organization from 20 stores in the Boston area to more than 1,100 stores nationally, according to his CV.

In 1995, Harreld was listed as a defendant in a lawsuit accusing him and other corporate leaders of insider trading and conflict of interest. That initial lawsuit was dismissed, but plaintiffs persisted and the case eventually settled.

From 1983 to 1993, Harreld was senior vice president and division president of Kraft General Foods in Northfield, Ill., leading the $2 billion “frozen foods unit,” which included Tombstone Pizza, DiGiorno, Budget Gourmet, and Lenders Bagels.

According to the CV provided by the Board of Regents, Harreld lists himself as managing principal for a firm called Executing Strategy LLC, out of Avon, Colo., advising public, private, and military organizations on “leadership, organic growth, and strategic renewal.”

But no business with that name is registered with the Secretary of State’s Office in Colorado, and representatives with an Avon-area chamber of commerce said they have no knowledge of the business. An Executing Strategy LLC was registered with the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 2009 under the signatory James Bruce Harreld, but it was dissolved earlier this year.

Harreld, according to public records, on Feb. 6, 2013, filed three mandatory annual reports for the business for the years 2010, 2011, and 2012. But no reports have been filed since, and the secretary of the commonwealth on June 30 took action to dissolve the business, which listed its services provided as consulting, strategy, implementation, marketing, and turnaround advice.

Harreld’s LinkedIn profile currently lists him as a corporate adviser in the Greater Denver Area and working for General Motors from 2015 to present -- although the CV provided by the Board of Regents doesn’t include work with General Motors.

Public Forum. Tuesday's [Sept. 1] public forum did not go well for Mr. Harreld. It may not have been his fault. He may not have been adequately briefed on what he needed to know, and what he should expect from an understandably upset faculty, staff and students. Click here for YouTube video of event.

For starters, unlike the other three he had neither adequately researched the University of Iowa nor prepared a formal, coherent, written statement. Unlike, say, a Peter Drucker, he has not written any business literature of note. However, he has read it, and business magazines, and is comfortable with corporate-think, its current fads and consultant-speak jargon. But that was not enough to create a coherent presentation, sprinkled with specifics from higher education. (All candidates were asked to present a "vision" and "mission" for the University, and the first three prepared such narratives. Harreld's vision? Four words: Iowa should go "from great to greater.")

You had to feel sorry for the guy; "deer in the headlights" comes to mind. Whether he would ever have been able to do well in such a faculty setting is not clear, but he was certainly not able to do so Tuesday afternoon. One had the sense he hadn’t even watched the online videos of the prior three candidates -- what clearly could have been a competitive advantage offered him by whoever scheduled their presentations.

One of the worst exchanges was his response to law professor Shelly Kurtz's question as to whether Harreld could imagine himself agreeing to return $47 million to the Regents to distribute to Iowa State and Northern Iowa (as was done by the past UI president). Harreld said he could. He seemingly didn’t even grasp the most basic political/organizational fact that it is the UI president’s job (as viewed by most faculty and others) to represent the university’s best interests -– not to turn back $47 million if the president thinks the State of Iowa might better spend it elsewhere. Once the legislature, or Regents -- whose responsibility is to the State -- makes their decision, however foolish, you either resign in protest or accept it and move on. But you don’t simply "start off backing up" and capitulate without a fight.

These are not the impressions of one lone observer. After this was written there was a survey of opinion regarding Harreld. The results?

"In a survey conducted by the UI chapter of the American Association of University Professors, only 1.8 percent of faculty and 2.6 percent of other respondents answered “yes” to the question of whether Harreld was qualified for the position. The other candidates -— Oberlin President Marvin Krislov, Tulane University Provost Michael Bernstein and Ohio State University Provost Joseph Steinmetz -- all had more than 90 percent of respondents view them as qualified . . .."Jeff Charis-Carlson, "UI Survey: Harreld Viewed as Least Qualified UI Finalist,"Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), September 2, 2015, 12:23 p.m.

Because some in the business community are quick to reject the opinions of faculty members -- in this instance, unfairly suggesting that faculty are willing to put their own perceived self-interest above institutional interest -- note that the public, community, student and staff evaluation of Harreld was comparable: 97.4% concluded he was unqualified to be UI president (compared with the 98.2% of faculty who shared that view).

Indeed, I think that a comment at the bottom of this blog entry from "Anonymous" probably represents the view of many: "the problem wasn't that he [Harreld] was a nonacademic, it was that he hadn't the faintest idea how a university works or, one suspects, what a university does. The across-the-board innocence of anything resembling knowledge of university operations was astonishing -- I've never seen a less viable candidate for...anything, I think."

Yes, it is the Regents who have the final say in selecting Iowa's universities presidents. No one disputes their legal power to execute their merest whim. But if they truly value today's progressive business culture and practice they will know that no corporate CEO, or board members, with a responsibility to shareholders, would risk forcing a decision against such near-unanimous opposition. They would, at a minimum, take the time to educate the stakeholders and do what was necessary to create buy-in to the decision (if possible) before it was made and announced.

Conclusion. This is but one case study. Clearly, the take-away is not that those with business experience should never even be considered as possible university presidents. It is that there is no magic in business experience as such -- any more than there is magic in having had some kind of academic administrative experience.

The question, as with any candidate, is not whether a given past experience (or race, gender, or other categories) is either qualifying or disqualifying. It is whether this experience of this candidate contributes anything to his or her capacity to be an acceptable and effective president of this university.

A final lesson is that however transferrable CEO abilities may be from one industry to another very different industry (such as John Sculley going from president of Pepsi to CEO of Apple), they are not smoothly transferrable into higher education. Before someone with business experience is selected as a finalist for a university presidential search, for the sake of the candidate as well as the institution, there should be confidence that their knowledge of and commitment to the values of higher education are such as to enable that smooth transition.

That was not the case with Bruce Harreld at the University of Iowa. Of course, if Harreld is nonetheless selected by the Regents tomorrow, well, that raises another set of issues and questions, doesn't it.

Now [Sept. 8] here are some of those issues:

AAUP Scorches Regents Late last evening [Sept. 7] President Katherine Tachau, and other officers of the University of Iowa Chapter of the American Association of University Professors, issued a statement "deploring the actions of the Iowa Board of Regents in appointing Mr. Bruce Harreld [UI president]." The full text of the paragraph-long statement
can be found here.

The statement continues with these excerpts, "Only a pre-conceived determination by the Regents to appoint Mr. Harreld regardless of campus reactions to him can explain his hiring [given] the combination of his performance . . . problems with his resume, and the conclusion of the overwhelming majority [98.2% to 97.6%] . . . that he is unqualified . . .. We sincerely regret our inability to believe that the Regents are prepared to act in the best interests of the university. And we extend our heartfelt apologies to President Krislov, Provost Bernstein, and Provost Steinmetz for the treatment they received . . .."

"Ayatollah" Rastetter. From November 4, 1979, to January 20, 1981, 52 American diplomats and citizens were held hostage in the U.S. Embassy in Tehran by Muslim students supporting the Iranian Revolution. The American TV networks reminded viewers of this event with the daily update, e.g., "America held hostage Day 444" (the last day). Compare, "UI Held Hostage Day 505," June 10, 2007, reporting on the Regents' handling of their last presidential selection process.

What came to be called the "hostage crisis" was widely believed to have contributed to the defeat of President Jimmy Carter in the 1980 election.

The Iranian Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini had little to gain by continuing to hold the Americans hostage, but he realized that if he released them before the American presidential election it would help his enemy, President Carter. So he waited until Ronald Reagan won the election and then, on the day Reagan was sworn in, got Reagan off to a good start by releasing the Americans.

Bruce Rastatter has little in common with Ayatollah Khomeini. He doesn't look like him. He's not Muslim. About all they share is their understanding of political power and its exercise. (Coming from me, that is a compliment -- while recognizing the distinction between "understanding" and the consequences of the use of that understanding for good or ill.)

Rastatter has been holding the UI hostage. He advocated shifting $47 million from the UI to the other two universities. More recently, he's proposed additional funds for the other two, but none for the UI. Among his demands, or goals, is the appointment of a UI president more to his liking. He now has him, in the person of Bruce Harreld. But with Harreld has come an overwhelming public judgment of his lack of either qualifications or a willingness to fight the Regents, when necessary, on behalf of the University.

What can be done to keep the faculty from storming Jessup Hall (home to the UI president) with pitchforks?

Yesterday [Labor Day, Sept. 7] "the Regents" (meaning Rastatter) issued a statement including, "After meeting with incoming President Harreld . . . it is clear that additional funding to support the long term reinvestment in the core mission of teaching and research is needed." Vanessa Miller, "Regents Change Course, Consider Push for New University of Iowa Funding; Faculty, Student Questions, Criticism Remains,"The Gazette (online), September 7, 2015, 7:51 PM; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Higher Education: Regents Might Seek More Money for UI After All; After Selection of Controversial Iowa President, Board Asked to Endorse an Extra $4.5 Million for University," The Gazette, September 8, 2015, p. A1

Katherine Tachau, Iowa's AAUP Chapter president, summed it up: "If I had just hired a university president who had as little support among the students, staff, alumni and faculty as the current president, the very first thing I would do would allow him to appear victorious in advocating for the university." Ibid.

"Embracing the Status Quo"? Really?

The September 9 hard copy edition of The Daily Iowan contains a statement from Board of Regents President Bruce Rastetter. “GPSG, Rastetter Release Statements/Bruce Rastatter,” The Daily Iowan, September 9, 2015, p. 3.

The opening and closing sentences read as follows:

”The landscape of higher education is changing, and the current ways of operating are not sustainable. . . . We are disappointed that some of those [UI] stakeholders have decided to embrace the status quo of the past [sic] over opportunities for the future and focus their efforts on resistance to change instead of working together to make the UI even greater.”

Given the general language, the statement doesn’t say much. But much can be said about it.

For starters, it is inaccurate, insulting and duplicitous. Since Bruce Harreld’s public forum on September 1, I have heard much discussion on the UI campus about the events that followed. During that time I have encountered no one who decided, said, or whom I thought silently believed, that UI’s stakeholders should “embrace the status quo of the past over opportunities for the future” or reject “working together to make the UI even greater.”

So, unless Rastatter can find such folks, or I run across them, the statement is inaccurate.

Indeed, why would anyone reject “opportunities for the future” and things that would make their institution (school, church, military unit, corporation) “even greater"? So, it’s also deliberately insulting.

Finally, it’s duplicitous because he either knows, or ought to know, the basis for the near unanimous expressions of concern from UI’s “stakeholders.” Most fundamentally, it is because both the analytical and the political processes were backwards.

It can be helpful for any organization to assess its mission, goals, options and performance from time to time – including the Board of Regents, given how far it has strayed from conventional board governance principles.

This is true as well of higher education in America in general, and the University of Iowa in particular – all of which have been doing a good deal of that of late.

But one does not begin that analytical and political process by picking a new institutional leader with “experience in transitioning other large enterprises through change,” as Rastatter characterizes Harreld’s primary qualification.

Rather, one most profitably begins by involving all interested parties with (a) an assessment of performance compared with output goals (e.g., what knowledge and skills do we want our graduates to have?), (b) identifying what may need changing, (c) researching widely what comparable institutions have done, in this country and abroad, when confronting similar goals and needs, (d) prioritizing what most needs doing, and (e) then selecting some pilot-project possibilities for testing. [For supporting document see Footnote 2.]

Above all, one must avoid slogans, clichés, and ideological approaches – “government is not the solution, government is the problem;” “university faculty members are resistant to change;” “the private sector can always do it better than public institutions;” “the current ways of operating [higher education] are not sustainable.” Not only does the process need to be much more nuanced, detailed, research and data driven, but “fire, ready, aim” is almost sure to miss.

My school board colleagues once wanted to skip a discussion with teachers regarding what would be going on inside a new school (that might have an impact on its design) and just go directly to an architect's plans. I expressed my concern as, "Usually, before asking an architect for plans you tell them whether you want to build a courthouse or an outhouse." An analogous principle applies to the desirability of selecting university presidents after, rather than before, there is consensus regarding where you want them to take you.

The political process, throughout, is one in which stakeholder groups are meaningfully involved, not merely provided the opportunity to submit comments that, from past experience, will most likely be totally ignored. This is not just an effort at engineering opinion and acceptance. It is because, as the wisest of manufacturing industries’ executives know, if you are looking for ideas for improving the efficiency of an assembly line they are more likely to come from those working the line on the ground floor than those giving orders from the top floor. What is true for an assembly line is exponentially more so for a major research university.

If you don’t know where you want to go it’s highly unlikely you’ll ever get there – and it will make little difference how much experience with corporate “transitioning” your guide has.

Finally, there are the other reasons for the overwhelming opposition to the process used by the Regents and the qualifications of their ultimate choice. These have been fully explored in my italicized quote at the top of this blog post, and the "sections" of discussion preceding the "References" (Prestige; Educational Minimums; Relevant Values; Skills Allocation; Business Record; Public Forum; Conclusion), and therefore need not be further discussed here.

Jeff Charis-Carlson, "UI Survey: Harreld Viewed as Least Qualified UI Finalist,"Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), September 2, 2015, 12:23 p.m. ("In a survey conducted by the UI chapter of the American Association of University Professors, only 1.8 percent of faculty and 2.6 percent of other respondents answered “yes” to the question of whether Harreld was qualified for the position. The other candidates -- Oberlin President Marvin Krislov, Tulane University Provost Michael Bernstein and Ohio State University Provost Joseph Steinmetz -— all had more than 90 percent of respondents view them as qualified . . ..")

Elizabeth Heineman, "Why UI Community United to Oppose Harreld,"Des Moines Register (online), September 12, 2015, 6:00 p.m. ("Does this mean we cannot imagine someone from the business world as an effective university leader? No. It means the university community concluded, after assessing his [Harreld's] resume and his performance during his campus visit, that this particular candidate was not equipped for the job. Does this mean that we resist innovation? No. Just ask the federal granting agencies, corporate donors, and private philanthropies that every year entrust the University with well over $400 million in research funds. They do this because they know that for us, innovation isn’t an empty slogan – it’s about results.")

September 13-15, 2015

General: "Collegeland,", "The Education Issue," New York Times Magazine, September 13, 2015

Michael J. De La Merced and Evelyn M. Rusli, "Yahoo's Chief to Leave as Company Strikes Deal With Loeb," New York Times, May 13, 2012, 12:18 p.m., 10:22 p.m. (Harreld's resume contained false information regarding his current position and past publications. Should that be relevant in an academic appointment? Would it have been in the business world? "Yahoo's embattled chief executive, Scott Thompson, stepped down . . . after just four months on the job . . .. [T]he hedge fund [Third Point] pointed out that . . . his [Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson's] biography stated that he held both accounting and computer science degrees . . .. Yahoo later conceded that he had earned only an accounting degree, and that the flub -- described as an 'inadvertent error' -- had been included in regulatory filings.") And see, James B. Stewart, "In the Undoing of a C.E.O., a Puzzle,"New York Times, May 19, 2012, p. B12 (“Mr. Thompson now joins a lengthy and puzzling list of prominent people who have embroidered or falsified their résumés and were felled for doing so, including a former Notre Dame football coach, chief executives of RadioShack and Bausch & Lomb, a director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency and an MIT admissions director.”) [posted here September 16, 2015]

Stacey Murray, "Another Group Rebukes Harreld,"The Daily Iowan" (online), September 24, 2015 ("The UI Faculty Assembly from the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences moved a censure at its closed session Wednesday, citing Harreld’s 'failure of professional ethics' as the basis for the action.")

Jeff Charis-Carlson, "Regents: Nothing Wrong with Early Harreld Meetings,"Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), September 25, 2015, 11:40 a.m., 7:14 p.m.; hard copy: Jeff Charis-Carlson, "Regents Defend Early Meetings with Harreld; Several on the Board Say July Sessions Did Not Affect Their Consideration of Other UI President Finalists," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 26, 2015, p. A1 ("'In my role as a regent, we honor the shared governance of the university faculty and staff,' [Regent Katie] Mulholland said. 'But shared governance is really different from shared decision-making.'”)

Jason Lee, "What Happened With That Presidential Search in Iowa?" Wiscape/School of Education/University of Wisconsin-Madison, September 28, 2015 (one of best summaries of process and selection; "three broad themes at play within the search that places this process firmly in the ​realm of the corporate university: Politics, business, and limiting faculty power.")

Kellie Woodhouse, "Were the Vetters Vetted?"Inside Higher Ed (online), September 17, 2015 [posted here September 28, 2015] (Did the Regents vet the Parker Executive Search firm, and the times it's failed in other searches to catch serious flaws in candidates -- like Harreld's inaccurate job title, and failure to include the co-authors of "his" publications?)

And on the same subject: Cindy Garcia, "Snowden Critiques Surveillance,"The Daily Iowan (online), September 29, 2015 ("One audience member raised [in a question to Edward Snowden] concerns over access to public records in relation to the recent appointment of Bruce Harreld as UI president. 'It raises a central point, which is that when you think about the lessons of 2015, they’re not about surveillance. They’re about democracy,' Snowden said. 'The bottom line is that secret policy is almost always bad policy.' He noted that public officials should explain and be held accountable for secret policies. 'One more thing I will say as a technologist, who has worked with forensics and who has worked for the NSA — emails don’t become unrecoverable by accident,' he said.'”); hard copy: Cindy Garcia, "Snowden Critiques Surveillance," The Daily Iowan, September 29, 2015, p. A1

Paul Durrenberger, "A Modest Proposal for the University of Iowa,"Little Village, September 29, 2015 ("A political scientist at Johns Hopkins, Benjamin Ginsberg, has come up with a new twist he calls Massive Open Online Administration [MOOA]. Administrators everywhere face the same problems and even now govern by collectively established best practices. One person can solve the same problem at many different universities with a few keystrokes. And save the even greater cost of administrators.")

Gregory Dunn, "J. Bruce Harreld Will Succeed With Help,"The Gazette (online), October 6, 2015, 12:01 a.m.; hard copy: Gregory Dunn, "J. Bruce Harreld Will Succeed With Help," The Gazette, October 6, 2015, p. A5 ("He will succeed because Gov. Terry Branstad and Bruce Rastetter will do everything in their power so he doesn’t fail. Then they can thumb their noses at the UI community . . ..")

David Brooks, "The Big University,"The New York Times (online), October 6, 2015; hard copy: David Brooks, "The Big University," The New York Times, October 6, 2015, p. A31 ("On almost every campus faculty members and administrators are trying to stem the careerist tide and to widen the system’s narrow definition of achievement. . . . programs . . . designed to cultivate the whole student: the emotional, spiritual and moral sides and not just the intellectual. . . . [M]oral and spiritual development . . . through small groups and relationships and in social contexts. . . . [T]here are a series of forces leading [faculty] to widen out so that they leave a mark on the full human being.")

General: Mike Konczal, "Generation Debt,"Dissent, Fall 2015 ("We’ve seen examples of where this defunding and privatization process ends—most notably in Chile, as writer Lili Loofbourow has documented. Viewing higher education as a luxury, Augusto Pinochet set about dismantling public education and transferring its role to the private sector immediately after his 1973 coup. The result was a system that was far more unequal, expensive, and class-based than anything that came before. After decades of struggle, progressives in Chile may be on the verge of fixing this; the United States, however, is moving steadily in the opposite direction.")

General: Jedediah Purdy, "Ayn Rand Comes to U.N.C.,"The New Yorker, March 19, 2015 ("For several years, there have been indications that the state’s new leaders want to change the mission of public higher education in North Carolina. . . . Using the language of business schools, he [Republican Governor Pat McCrory] urged his audience to 'reform and adapt the U.N.C. brand to the ever-changing competitive environment of the twenty-first century' and to '[hone] in on skills and subjects employers need.'") [posted here October 8, 2015]

General: "Committee OKs Lifting UW Out-of-State Student Cap," Associated Press/Minnesota Public Radio, October 8, 2015 ("A University of Wisconsin System committee approved a plan to lift UW-Madison's cap on out-of-state students Thursday after the campus' chancellor and system president insisted they need more freedom to attract fresh talent for Wisconsin employers.")

Karen Dawisha, Keith Tuma and John McNay, "AAUP: Miami U Making a Big Mistake,"Cincinnati Enquirer, October 8, 2015, 11:18 a.m. ("[T]he Miami University board of trustees has chosen to conduct a secret search for the new president of the university. This is an alarming development. . . . Transparency and honesty, especially at a public institution of higher education, should be of the utmost importance. . . . What has happened at the University of Iowa is a cautionary tale.")

John Pappajohn on Harreld: Neither praise nor defense of Regents' process or selection, Vanessa Miller, "Pappajohn Hands Out $10,000 on University of Iowa Campus; 'Philanthropy is a Way of Life,'"The Gazette (online), October 9, 2015, 5:33 p.m.; hard copy: Vanessa Miller, "Higher Education: Cash for a Cause; UI Donor John Pappajohn Gives Students Nearly $10,000 to Encourage Philanthropy," The Gazette, October 10, 2015, p. A1 (the entirety of the story's quotes from Pappajohn: "I think you have to give the new president an opportunity to perform. . . . The gentleman, who I recently met, is entitled to a chance. . . . I think it's a wonderful opportunity for the new president to come up with new ideas.")

Jeff Charis-Carlson, "Pappajohn Urges UI to Give Harreld a Chance,"Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), October 9, 2015, 7:49 p.m.; hard copy: Jeff Charis-Carlson, "Pappajohn Urges UI to Give Harreld Chance," Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 10, 2015, p. A3 (the entirety of the story's quotes from Pappajohn: "They [Harreld's critics] are entitled to their own opinion. I think outside the box because I'm a businessman. And I think we should give the gentleman an opportunity. . . . The president has very little to do with it [who Pappajohhn donated to depended more on [J C-C "who had the vision for the business, facility, program, college or venture . . . . If Harreld, however, proves unable to win over the campus community with a clear vision for the university, Pappajohn said, then he should live up to his word and move on."] I move presidents in and out. I'm pretty good at selecting, but nobody is perfect. You need to base everything on performanance . . . and if the performance [is] bad, you need to act.")

Ellen Heywood, "Search Process for President Questionable,"The Gazette (online), October 12, 2015, 12:15 a.m.; hard copy: Ellen Haywood, "Search Process for President Questionable," The Gazette, October 12, 2015, p. A6 ("To truly appreciate the difference in the results of a faculty driven presidential search and a Board of Regents driven search one can look at where our former presidents are today. . . . Tell me, Board of Regents and Gov. Terry Branstad, do you see your recent selection to head the University of Iowa ever being chosen in the future for a position of the magnitude of these former presidents . . .?")

General: David Brooks' column about today's conservatives provides insight into the thinking of those who want to "transform" higher education: David Brooks, "The Republicans’ Incompetence Caucus,"The New York Times (online), October 13, 2015; hard copy David Brooks, "The Incompetence Caucus," The New York Times, October 13, 2015, p. A25

"An Olive Branch From New Iowa President?"Inside Higher Ed, October 14, 2015 ("Faculty leaders at the University of Iowa remain angry that Bruce Harreld, a business executive lacking in experience leading in higher education, was last month named president.")

Tom Knox, "Ohio State Faculty Stay Out of Furor Over Iowa Presidential Pick,"Columbus Business First (online), October 15, 2015, 1:53 p.m. ("[W]e support our faculty colleagues at Iowa in affirming academic integrity, intellectual honesty, and transparency in selecting leaders . . . [however] our provost, Joseph Steinmetz, was a finalist for the presidency at Iowa. His not being selected makes it awkward if not inappropriate to endorse this resolution.")

H. Glenn Penny, "Melting Iowa's Quarters: Undermining Public Education in Iowa," Huffington Post, October 20, 2015, 5:49 p.m. ("Iowa has a long tradition of being a strong education state, so long and strong that it chose a schoolhouse as its marker for the Iowa quarter and stamped the statement 'foundation in education' on its back. The regents' ongoing efforts to undermine the University of Iowa's educational mission by reducing its funding and undercutting the role of educators in its governance constitutes an assault on that tradition . . ..")

General ("life imitating art department"): Josh O'Leary, "Smiley Discusses 'Prophetic' Book in Return to Iowa City,"Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), October 27, 2015, 9:19 a.m.; hard copy: Josh O'Leary, "Smiley Discusses 'Prophetic' Book; Farcical Story About University Budget Cuts Has Similarities with Current Happenings on UI Campus," Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 27, 2015, p. A3 ("In the book [published in 1995], an anti-intellectual governor repeatedly attempts to cut the budget of an unnamed Midwestern university — an agricultural school nicknamed 'Moo U' — and a billionaire businessman opens his wallet in exchange for the institution's help with a rain forest gold-mining project.")

October 28-31, 2015

Jeff Charis-Carlson, "UNI Faculty Offers Support for UI's 'No Confidence' Vote Against Regents,"Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), October 27, 2015, 11:40 a.m.; hard copy: Jeff Charis-Carlson, "UNI Group Supports UI on Regents; Statement Says Board 'Failed Duty' to Care for Students, Residents with Presidential Search," Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 28, 2015, p. A1 ("The statement from the UNI faculty comes after similar governance groups at eight Big Ten schools issued statements in support of the UI faculty. Previous statements of support of the no confidence vote had been issued by the UNI and Iowa State University chapters of the American Association of University Professors.")

Jim Zeller, "Harreld, UI Get Off to Rocky Start,"Des Moines Register (online), October 25, 2015, 12:01 a.m. ("the sort of honeymoon period you would expect from a shotgun wedding, with Board of Regents President Bruce Rastetter holding the gun") [posted here October 28, 2015]

UI's Dubuque MBA Program on Hold Over Concerns," Associated Press/Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 29, 2015, 7:48 p.m.; hard copy: "UI's Dubuque MBA Program on Hold Over Local Concerns; Clarke University, Loras College and the University of Dubuque Opposed It," Associated Press/Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 30, 2015, p. A3

Duncan Stewart, "Hubris Running Rampant in Iowa,"Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), October 28, 2015, 10:02 p.m.; hard copy: Duncan Stewart, "Hubris Running Rampant Through Iowa," Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 29, 2015, p. A9 ("It's not only locals who don't give a damn about dazzling displays of arrogance. The Iowa Board of Regents . . . lured three distinguished candidates to campus for meaningless interviews, and then produced the hapless Bruce Harreld [who] confessed that he would need a job coach to tell him what to do. In one last act of disdain, the Regents' own press release listed Harreld's nonexistent company as his current employer.")

"Former Bush Education Chief Spellings to Lead UNC System," Associated Press/New York Times, October 23, 12:43 p.m. ("Elsewhere, other university leaders selected from outside the academic world include former Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, running the University of California system, and former IBM executive Bruce Harreld as the University of Iowa's next president. . . . It's troubling that the board didn't involve the faculty or students in reviewing candidates, said assembly chairman Stephen Leonard, a political science professor at UNC-Chapel Hill.")

Jeff Charis-Carlson, "Cost for UI Presidential Search Reaches $308K,"Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), October 30, 2015, 1:38 p.m.; hard copy: Jeff Charis-Carlson, "Cost for UI Presidential Search Reaches $308K: Consultants Paid $281,770 by Regents to Assist with Finding New President," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), October 31, 2015, p. A3 ("[C]ritics on campus complained that Parker had failed to discover inaccurate information in Harreld's resume, which had been released to the UI community. Harreld said during his public forum that the company listed in his most recent work history didn't exist and referred to his private consulting work. Regent officials have said they weren't concerned about the inaccuracy on the resume.")

University presidents ain't cheap. In addition to the $308K for the search, and the $600K + $200K per year salary, plus the value of various benefits, the costs of numerous staff, and ongoing reimbursed "expenses," there's the matter of the ongoing costs of maintaining free office and housing: $1.5 million additions to the fixer-upper presidential residence, $750K+ (briefly deferred) to remodel his office, and now $2000 a month for his townhouse. Jeff Charis-Carlson, "UI Leases Townhouse for New President at $2000 per Month,"Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), October 30, 2015, 2:36 p.m.

Paul G. Etre, "Harreld Hiring Process Underhanded," Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 31, 2015, p. A9 ("The claims that Harreld made in his message to the community to bring change, success and greatness to the university sounded empty and hollow, akin to the claims made by politicians and advertisers, not by educational leaders.")

"Culture is a critical control system, it needed to be managed actively

Actions speak louder than words, and is the most effective way to set the culture

-Public hanging of non-performers and culture change resistors was done in order to send a message, but this was done sparingly
-Public rewards were communicated across all levels of the business in order to encourage and reinforce behavior"

Footnote 2: A day or so after writing this I found the following from a classic document of the AAUP regarding presidential searches and governance:

"Institutional Analysis and Leadership Criteria.The search committee should spend some time defining the present condition of the college or university, determining what problems must be faced, what priorities the institution has, and what direction it must take to meet its challenges and opportunities. This institutional analysis is needed in order to determine the type of leadership qualities needed for this particular stage in the college or university’s development. The leadership criteria statement defines the principal qualities that are required in the new president--an academic leader, an experienced fund raiser, etc. The statement of leadership criteria should be circulated to various institutional constituencies for review and comment. Consensus within the campus community on the leadership qualities is important since these criteria are used in evaluating candidates' credentials and again in the and interview process." (emphasis supplied)

23 comments:

It is indeed worrisome that our Regents believed him to be someone worthy of the position of "top four" let alone of the UI President position! Thank you for a well-written and clear post - hopefully the Regents will read it as well. It may be time to rethink their "four white guys" strategy.

While he may not have been the most qualified candidate, much of the opposition was based on the fact that he was a non academic and little else. The lack of diversity decried by many obviously does not include variety in backgrounds.

They could have saved everyone a lot of time and just hired Steinmetz.

Barleykorn, the problem wasn't that he was a nonacademic, it was that he hadnt the faintest idea how a university works or, one suspects, what a university does. The across-the-board innocence of anything resembling knowledge of university operations was astonishing -- I've never seen a less viable candidate for...anything, I think.

I agree that Harreld is not a strong candidate. I disagree that his answer to Kurtz's question was awful. He could have answered more deeply but "Yes, I can imagine it." is far better than the hoped-for "No." You say "He seemingly didn’t even grasp the most basic political/organizational fact that it is the UI president’s job (as viewed by most faculty and others) to represent the university’s best interests." My sense (having been a UI faculty member for more than 20 years) is that far too many administrators, department chairs, and unit head, etc. spend (too) much of their time (vigorously and skillfully) doing "their job" of defending existing resources without considering larger contexts. It seems like you are saying a President should never agree to any re-allocations ahead of time, only accept (or resign) after higher-ups have decided. A huge amount of time is wasted this way and impedes interesting progress.

Thanks for that comment, "Anonymous." My suspicion is that if we had time to visit over coffee or beer about this we'd probably find ourselves more in agreement than disagreement. Suppose the governor, a regent, or UI president says to a dean, or department chair, "We've decided to abolish your college/department." I don't think, in that circumstance, the dean/DEO has an obligation to file a lawsuit, organize a march on Jessup, circulate petitions, or threaten anyone with bodily harm. I do think s/he has an obligation to the University and the State (putting aside for a moment such obligations as they may have to colleagues and students), if they truly believe it, to put together a thoughtful, informative, documented written case for why that would not be a wise course of action for the University and state of Iowa. Let's give Kurtz and Harreld the benefit of the doubt: there was not perfect communication between them. I'm not confident that Harreld would disagree with what I said two sentences above, nor do I think Kurtz would insist on what I wrote three sentences above.

Yes, Nick, I'm sure we'd agree on most things. Mostly, I just didn't think the way Kurtz set up the question left much room for a good thoughtful answer. And, I'm a bit frustrated with what seems like narrow defensive mindsets/hunkering down, and little creative thinking from top to bottom (I do partly blame admin for not responding well to/encouraging creative thinking at, say dept. chair level, but still ...) In any case, we'll now get to see if the Regents' big risk pays off!?

This was an inside job. Herrald was invited to apply, almost a red carpet rolled out. He was unprepared, unqualified, ill-advised, and generally lost. But it was a done deal inside job. Why?

The power in Iowa has migrated to the Des Moines area. Our Governor for Life TB is annoyed with JoCo, annoyed with the Univ Iowa, and involved with central Iowa. (has TB been to Eastern Iowa? Ever?).

TB is simply dictating terms to the BOR for a power shift of monies and influence to DM area schools -- ISU, Drake, DM University. This poor fellow is going to be a hatchet man who has to deal with fewer state dollars, les influence, and less power.

TB is fed up with 90 million dollar cost over-runs (Children's Hosp), fed up with the People's Repub of JoCo, fed up with The University of Illinois at Iowa City, fed up with tenure and pointed headed academics, and fed up with sabbaticals.

Rep Steve King and his ilk want nothing to do with the U of Iowa. It is as you say, anti-intellectual... (although Harreld is getting fleshed out and it appears he isn't all bad; would say he could quslify as an adjunct visiting lecturer)

So the bizarre hire a 64 y/o unemployed MBA to a university he had to look up on Wiki makes more sense....TB will do to Iowa what Walker wants todo to Wisky and Brownback to Kansas, only in a more clever way.

This move bt Regents fits well with a much broader agenda acutely manifest in mid-country by KS and WI. The privatization of education--and not in a traditional liberal arts, small college mode--is high on that agenda. The privatization of universities will continue nominal public ownership. ISU is a good example of the direction, especially in its agricultural affiliations. Leach's loyalty to this "corporatism" is being rewarded. The "big donor" who, in a front page story in today's Gazette, praised Harreld's selection heralds the future for the U of I under the present regime. Higher education has been priced out of reach by our present crop of "masters of the universe" and now the basic infrastructure is being claimed as bounty. Elections do matter.

"why didn't you point out that halfway thru his 10 yrs at junk food mega-producer, the company was bought up by the world’s leading for-profit consumer killing machine, Philip Morris? Who in his right moral mind would work for it? Why didn’t he resign? That’s the non-hypothetical version of the hypothetical question you put to another candidate. Now as a presidential role model for students, the lesson his career will teach them is that the priority is profit and corporate employees don’t need to concern themselves with whether the “negative externality” of their life’s work is obesity, diabetes, heart disease, etc in the case of junk food or death of half of your customers and the world’s leading cause preventable death (100 million in 20th c and on course toward 1 billion in 21st) in the case of cigarettes."

Kingmaker Rastetter now appears to be disingenuous on the U of Iowa budget process. http://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/education/higher-education/university-of-iowa-was-told-to-seek-no-funding-increase-20150910 He tells the UIowa not to request a budget increase. Then he announces that the UIowa admin isn't seeking any budget increase. How is that for a circular piece of dishonesty? This guy is not to be trusted.

Rastetter has violated (along with his BOR) almost every tenet of good academic board oversight. He ignores conflict of interest (obtains loans from ISU, has ISU profs do research on his farm, involves ISU in his Tanzania scam.; he micromanages campuses (complains about Dr Schoor's climate stance wanting Dr Mason to suppress it, did not want offices named for Sally Pederson, tried to manage Masons's actions); he politicizes and privatizes the board; and now he supports a fraudulent presidential search (if not criminal, allowing only his hand picked candidate access to Branstad).

How does a Ag exec/ethanol producer, college drop-out get to be an expert on the future of education? "The landscape of higher education is changing and the current ways of operating are not sustainable." Why doesn't the press make him substantiate his claims?

Rastetter doesn't understand academic freedom, difference of opinions, shared governance and fair play. He wants the regent's schools to be his political and economic playground. That's the new way of operating: buy state government and buy the stare's once proud educational system.

Where is the Iowa AG on conflict of interest? Fraud? Or a US Attorney? Where are the corruption investigations?

Why didn't the BOR simply wait until the president of United became available the other day? He has been recently employed (rather than retired and piddling around for 7 years) and appears to be very experienced at working with state government (under the table.

Notice Regarding Advertising: This blog runs an open comments section. All comments related to the content of blog entries have (so far) remained posted, regardless of how critical. Although I would prefer that those posting comments identify themselves, anonymous comments are also accepted.

The only limitation is that comments unrelated to the essay, such as advertising posing as comments, or with links to unrelated sites, will be removed. That is why one or more of the comments posted on this blog entry are no longer here.

This is going to be a failed presidency, and thus cost the U of Iowa, a great deal of money, talent, prestige and time. Why will it be failed?

1. The search process was biased and corrupt2. The new president doesn't meet the minimum requirements of the job description of being president of a large public research university; essentially he is a retired marketing executive3. Large universities can benefit from nontraditional presidents, such as David Boren at Okie and Mitch Daniels at Purdue. Although neither was an academic, both had experience in dealing with large public bureaucracies, and both were connected to their universities. Boren was Gov of Oklahoma, and Daniels Gov of Indiana. Harreld has neither of those qualifications even. His connection is apparently through business connections with the BOR chair, Rastetter.

This will be one disaster, which is good for the textbooks, but bad for Iowa.

So everything is a business in academia? When do the universities ante up and pay income tax?

A quick by annoying sideline, The AD would not release my season football tickets until I paid my 'mandatory donation'. They charge mastercard months ago but didn't deliver. Isn't a business held to business ethics like fraud?

By the same token, the Carver Hawkeye basketball seating has been redone. To hold on to seats cost 200.00 each. For faculty there may be a 50% discount. Ha! So when does this 'business' ante up and pitch in with revenue to local, state and federal Govt, as they really are acting as a free-profit with mislabels ('mandatory donation' for 'seat licensing fee')

Regarding the issues with J. Bruce Harreld lying on his resume about his fictional current employer (Executing Strategies LLC) and not crediting his co-authors in his published material, and maybe about having been fired from a job or two, here is a story from the business world recently:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/13/technology/yahoo-ceo-out/

It is the elephant in the room any time anyone meets with him. What do we tell Iowa students? That they should not lie on their resume unless they are the president of a university? Even the business world thinks it is a bad thing and the CEO of Yahoo (Fortune 500) is out on his ear because of a small "fib" about his college major.

What do we do when an employee is found lying on a resume?

It is all very very difficult. Lying is frowned upon in Iowa. Or so I thought.

So the head of the Iowa Board of Regents met with Harreld on July 8. Five BOR members met with him on July 30. The Governor apparently met with him. He lectured The interim President Robillard. And met with the Pres of Iowa State. And all this before he was a 'candidate'.

The incoming new president lied on his resume, about current employment and misrepresented his publication history. He also apparently lied to a faculty member at the forum when he denied connections to U of Iowa.

He has been given a vote of no confidence by several groups on campus. He is censured by a faculty group.

So therefore:

1. The entire search was corrupt, illegal and disgraceful2. Harreld lied on several occasions and official documents3. The BOR, the Gov and various university officials have shown themselves to be unethical and insensitive4. There is even the hint of the BOR deceiving faculty, students and the public

Where is the attorney general of Iowa to investigate corruption?

As the U of Iowa receives millions of federal monies and grants where is a US Attorney investigation into corruption? Isn't this as fraudulent as fixing bids on Gov contracts?

The BOR members involved should be censured and forced to resign, then investigated.

The candidate himself should be investigated and perhaps indicted for fraud (on official documents, it is clearly stated not to lie)

State Govt should be investigated for fraud and corruption

Presidents of ISU and Interim Iowa should be investigated for corruption

This isn't just an unqualified candidate being rammed down the throat of the Univ of Iowa; this is a net or widespread fraud, corruption, and perhaps conspiracy.

"Critics of the search point to Rastetter's role in setting up the July 30 meetings with Harreld as one more piece of evidence that Harreld already was the predetermined favored candidate and that the other three finalists — two university provosts and a college president — didn't really have a chance.

“In my role as a regent, we honor the shared governance of the university faculty and staff,” Mulholland said. “But shared governance is really different from shared decision-making.”"

This entire episode could be some made-for-tv reality show at our expense.

Imagine a 65 year-old university president retiring, to be replaced by a 64 year-old, unemployed fellow who was recently a lecturer at a business school. Think ‘Animal House’ and ‘Austin Powers’ combined.

I am seeing faculty representative John Belushi walk into the office of the dazed new president (played by Bill Murray) who frankly could care less he falsified and amplified his employment and publication history. After Belushi threatens to censure the new president, the head of the Board of Regents (looking a lot like John Vernon playing Dean Wormer) tries to place Bulushi’s faculty members on double secret probation.

The other regent Frau Farbissa says that ‘shared governance doesn’t shared decision making or even shared pizza’. Their plans to remake an ‘evil medical school’ is diabolically launched by Mke Myers.

The entire faculty and student body are expelled by BOR head Wormer and President Murray. However Belushi rallies the faculty with a rousing speech showing how ‘Merica overcame the German bombing of Pearl Harbor.

No Legal AdviceNothing posted on this blog is intended as, constitutes, nor should be taken to be, "legal advice," nor as creating an attorney-client relationship.

Personal ViewThis blog is neither affiliated with nor hosted by the University of Iowa or any other institution or organization. It is maintained by Nicholas Johnson in his individual capacity. Nothing posted here should be construed as anything other than the personal views of the author.